Furthermore...

Two more words for us please Grace
- someone who changes the subject when directly questioned or challenged by comments (There must be a better word than "evasive")
- someone who will not look at data when it is presented to them but will cling to notions that are challenged by that data

This is all rather rhetorical because I doubt that I'll get answers (see item 1 above)

It seems, t.u.s., A is A and fosbob, that this is the state of things in Australia.

Mild hysteria breaks out every time every time someone challenges the "religion" of global warming and produces evidence to support their claim.

The "faithful" retort with cries of "consensus", "you must be paid by oil companies", "what right do you have to question experts?", "precautionary principle" ... but nary a shred of counter-claim and evidence to support their arguments.

Even the politicians who aren't entirely gullible - and I think there must be some - see where the votes are and they move policies accordingly. After all, elected by religious faithfuls is still "elected".

John

Snowman wrote "Even the politicians who aren't entirely gullible - and I think there must be some - see where the votes are and they move policies accordingly. After all, elected by religious faithfuls is still "elected"."

There is indeed at least one. Read
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/firstspeech.asp?id=DYN

A couple of quick responses.

A is A, your sledge is misdirected. Exposing Snowman for new readers on this website is an ongoing exercise and a joint responsibility for myself and my fellow McLean sceptics. And we will continue to do it, be assured, its such fun.

Snowman (McLean), I am pleased to hear that I have a namesake somewhere with expertise in schizophrenia, perhaps you should address your strange little questions to her. As to my funding source, when I wrote on global warming back in the early eighties, it was the university sector, the same place that presumably funds your "post-grad" research now, and unless you are otherwise funded, gives you the luxury of spending most of your time on this website and attempting to write a scientific article that will pass peer-review for a reputable scientific journal. Still waiting.

Here is a test of the real intellectual abilities of the voluble defenders of GW. On February 15 I posted a question, which I repeat here. Interestingly, not one person attempted to answer it. Here it is, again.

It pertains to a presentation, by Carol Turley of the Plymouth Marine
Laboratory, at the recent Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change Conference at Exeter, entitled, "the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 on oceanic pH and the marine ecosystem".

You can read an abstract of the presentation at

http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html ,
or an account published in The Guardian at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1405647,00.html

"Scientists warn growing acidity of oceans will kill reefs
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Friday February 4, 2005
The Guardian
Scientists have given warning of a newly discovered threat to mankind, which will wipe out coral and many species of fish and other sea life. …Extra carbon dioxide in the air, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is not only spurring climate change, but is making the oceans more acidic - endangering the marine life that helps to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.…The oceans have previously recorded an 8.2 pH reading, but this has now dropped to 8.1 and is continuing to fall."

What is the glaringly obvious contradiction in this offering in the propaganda war?

Snowman you really don't get it do you what I'm saying about this subject is quite clear but I'll try again.
Both you and I don't know enough about this subject to make a valid assessment of the raw data. I can see that and I am happy to defer to the experts in this field you however are not. In fact form your last post you even suggest some of the worlds best climate experts who have been working in this field for decades don’t know anything about the climate. Quite full of yourself there John
I don't offer any counters to your "theories because of the above so I direct readers and yourself to a site maintained by people who do know about this subject.

The one point I’m quite happy to dispute with you about is the meaning of consensus which you seem not to understand. You will also note that I’ve corrected my description of you from a travel writer to a travel photographer you also claim to be a IT consulate, but I see climate expert is not on your list. So tell us again why have the majority of climate scientist got it wrong and your right?

As for funding I’ve have already provided links to sites about this subject.

Any one who takes the time to read your website and the real climate site can easy see where the expertise in this subject lies and it an’t with you.

Good on you AisA,fosbob,and Snowman. I have watched with interest the so called debates in this and other forums, and find it quite depressing. The sheer arrogance of those who say that because one doesnt have the right degrees, or not working in a particular field, then one is not able to assess the validity of a position,is unbelievable. I am a retired person with business and science degrees that are now so ancient that it doesnt matter. But I have a had a lifes long exposure to the world of both.

I have to say if one was sitting on a Board that is about to make a investment decision involving very large sums of money, on the basis of the information I have read, there is clearly quite insufficent data for any decision to be made. I also think that the trite argument that because some one is funded by whatever means that their arguments are less valid is also rubbish. All of them have a vested interest, including all the publically funded academics, and the CSIRO. But there are some conclusions that can be made.

1.Peer reviewed science is not to be trusted.There are too many examples of where this system has not worked.
2.The CSIRO has abdicated its role as the public funded arbiter of any science based debate.
3.Think tanks generally do more to advance the debate than they are given credit for, and I dont care whether it is the IPA, Tech Central, the Pew Centre, or Marshall Institute. One gets more from their respective positions than some of the personalised and arrogant academic claptrap peddled in these forums.